Delhi District Court
State vs . Gopal Kwatra Etc. on 20 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CENTRAL-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Gopal Kwatra Etc.
FIR No. : 152/99
P.S. : Jama Masjid
U/s.: 448/380 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 08/JM/02
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 14.10.1998
3. Date of institution of the case : 22.04.2004
4. Name of the complainant : Pandit Triloki Nath
5. Name of the accused, parentage & address :
1. Gopal Kwatra S/o R.D. Kwatra R/o
D290, Nirman vihar, Delhi.
2. Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) S/o Late
R.C Sharma R/o 2455, Nai Walan,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
6. Offence complained or proved : U/s 448/480 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order : 13.07.2011
Brief Facts
1. The complainant Pandit Triloki Nath (herein after referred to as "the complainant" in short) was a retired Govt. Servant who had been residing at the 1 st Floor, H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawari Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi (herein after referred to as "the premises in question" in short) since 1942. The complainant had an unmarried daughter named Shiv Kumari, who worked as a Principle at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Jheel Khuranji, Delhi, was also residing with him at the premises in question.
The complainant fell seriously ill in 1997 whereafter his above named daughter took on rent a house in the trans Yamuna Area of Delhi in order to take proper care FIR No. 152/99 Page 1 of 15 Pages of the complainant in cases of emergency since the said rented accommodation was near to her place of working and thereafter the complainant went to live in the said rented accommodation alongside with her said daughter after locking the premises in question. In his locked premises in question, the complainant left behind his Black & White TV, Double Bed, Several Trunks, Sewing Machine, Two Side tables, One Dinning table, Five Dinning chairs, One Sofa set, Two Chairs, One Chowki, One Water heating machine, One Rack and several Kitchen utensils (herein after referred to as "the household articles of the complainant" in short).
2. The complainant came back to the premises in question on 14.10.1998 and found that the entire premises in question at the 1st Floor of H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawari Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi had been demolished, all his locks have been broken and his entire household articles have been stolen. The complainant then asked the nearby unknown watchman as to what had happened at the premises in question who then told him that the premises in question had been demolished by accused Rajiv Sharma and his associate Sanjay Sharma.
Thereafter the complainant immediately approached the police and narrated the aforementioned circumstances whereafter the Tehrir Ex. PW6/B was recorded via DD No. 21A/14.10.1998, P.S. Jama Masjid. On the basis of the aforementioned Tehrir Ex. PW6/B, FIR Ex. PW6/A was recorded by the concerned Duty Officer PW6 SI Mohan Lal (retired) on 21.09.1999 whose investigation was then handed over to PW4 Inspector Sunil Kumar (herein after referred to as "the I.O." in short).
3. During the Course of the investigation the I.O. after recording the statement of the complainant and his daughter Shiv Kumari received the following documents from the complainant via seizure memo Ex. PW4/A : FIR No. 152/99 Page 2 of 15 Pages
a). The receipts Ex. PW4/A1 dated 20.06.1974 and Ex. PW4/A3 dated 29.07.1989 issued by Manohar Gas Service in favour of the complainant regarding the Gas Connection at the premises in question.
b). The priority letter dated 16.06.1974 Ex. PW4/A2 issued by Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the complainant regarding issuance of a Gas Connection on priority basis at the premises in question.
c). The Electricity Bill dated 25.07.1995 Ex. PW4/A4 issued in favour of the complainant by DESU regarding the premises in question.
d). The ration card Ex. PW4/A5 issued in the name of the complainant on 06.09.1996 at the premises in question comprising the ration taken by the complainant in the year 1997 & 1998 via notings Ex. PW4/A6 and Ex. PW4/A7.
e). The sanction letter Ex. PW4/A8 dated 03.01.1956 issued by Assistant Secretary of Delhi State Electricity Power Control Board regarding sanction of 0.25 KW of Electricity Connection in favour of the complainant at the premises in question.
f). The letter Ex. PW4/A9 issued by the Officer of the Chief Election Officer, Delhi on dated 03.10.1994 to the complainant at the premises in question regarding the issuance of his Election ID Card.
The I.O. then prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/B of the premises in question on 18.10.1999 whereafter he recorded the statements of PW3 Naresh Chand and Jai Kishan.
The I.O. also seized the GPA Ex. MarkC dated 09.10.1998 executed by Smt. Neelam in favour of accused Gopal Kwatra along with GPA Ex. MarkD dated 09.10.1998 executed by Sh. Subhash Chand in favour of accused Gopal Kwatra from the office of concerned SubRegistrar through PW7 Ct. Shiv Narayan via seizure memo Ex. PW4/E in FIR No. 152/99 Page 3 of 15 Pages pursuance of the notice's Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D issued by him U/s 91 Cr.P.C. Via the aforementioned GPA's Ex. MarkC and MarkD, the respective executant's authorized accused Gopal Kwatra to deal with their respective shares within House No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
The I.O. thereafter seized the following sale deeds via PW7 Ct. Shiv Narayan on 04.11.1999 via seizure memo Ex. PW4/F from the office of the concerned SubRegistrar in pursuance of the notice Ex. PW4/G issued by him U/s 91 Cr.P.C. :
a). The sale deed Ex. PW4/B1 dated 30.05.1991 executed by Smt. Sharda Suri in favour of Sh. Dharampal Chopra regarding her 1/3 rd undivided share in H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
b). The sale deed Ex. PW4/B3 dated 30.05.1991 executed by Smt. Sharda Suri in favour of Smt. Sulekha Chopra and Smt. Vinod Chopra regarding her 1/6th Undivided share in H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
c). The sale deed Ex. PW1/B dated 05.01.1996 executed by Sh. Hari Ram Narang in favour of Sh. Babu Ram Behl regarding his 1/6 th Undivided share in H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
d). The sale deed Ex. PW4/B4 dated 25.09.1997 executed by Saket Suri in favour of Vipin Kumar Chopra regarding his 1/6th undivided share in house no: 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
e). The sale deed Ex. PW1/A dated 19.01.1998 executed by Smt. Sheela Rani in favour of Sh. Babu Ram Behal regarding her 1/6th Undivided share in H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
FIR No. 152/99 Page 4 of 15 Pages The IO thereafter seized 18 electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 on 20.12.1999 via seizure memo Ex. PW4/H which were in the name of the complainant at his address of the premises in question (the said bills pertained for the period 27.03.1997 till 31.12.1999).
The IO also recorded the statement of PW1 Babu Ram Behal on 18.01.2000 and then arrested accused Rajiv Sharma on 27.03.2000 and accused Gopal Kwatra on 16.05.2000, whereafter the said IO was transferred and the present investigation was assigned to PW2 Inspector Mehtab Singh (Retired) (herein after referred to as the "2nd IO" in short) on 26.06.2000.
The 2nd IO then seized the GPA Ex. PW2/B via seizure memo Ex. PW2/A which was executed by Sh. Kapil Puri Maharaj in favour of accused Gopal Kwatra regarding House no: 321, Kuchaa Meer Ashiq, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
The investigation was hence concluded and the final charge sheet for the offences U/s 448/380/34 IPC was prepared against accused Rajiv Sharma and Gopal Kwatra.
PreTrial Procedure
4. The aforementioned charge sheet was filed before the court on 05.01.2002 whereupon the cognizance was taken against both the accused.
The accused Rajiv Sharma expired before the start of the trial whereafter proceedings against him were abated on 18.07.2002 and thus the trial only remained against accused Gopal Kwatra.
The Provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P.C. regarding accused Gopal Kwatra were complied on 18.07.2002 itself whereafter the said accused Gopal Kwatra was charged for the alleged commission of the offences U/s 380/448 IPC on 23.02.2004.
Trial
FIR No. 152/99 Page 5 of 15 Pages
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses.
PW1 Babu Ram Behal had deposed the following in his examination in chief :
a) That the House no: 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi had six shareholders of equal proportions whereby Hari Ram Narang was the owner of two shares while Smt. Sheela Rani Narang was the owner of one share.
b) That he had purchased the shares of Hari Ram Narang and Smt. Sheela Rani Narang respectively in the year 1996 and 1997 via respective sale deeds Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B whereafter he also took the possession from the aforementioned two erstwhile owners.
c) That the previous owner Hari Ram Narang had told him that there are two tenants in the said property out of which one was the complainant while the other was running a shop in the name of Raj Trading Company.
d) That whenever he visited the aforesaid property, he only found Raj Trading Company working there and never found the complainant present there.
e) That thereafter he sold the aforementioned portions to Mr. Subash Chander and Baba Kapil Puri in 1998 via sale deed Ex. Mark A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the defence.
6. PW2 Inspector Mehtab Singh (Retired) was the 2nd IO who had deposed that he was assigned the investigation of this case on 26.06.2000 whereafter PW8 Ct. Pawan Kumar handed him over the GPA Ex. PW2/B executed by Kapil Puri Maharaj in favour of accused Gopal Kwatra after obtaining the same from the office of concerned Registrar at Rohtak, Haryana, which was then seized by him via seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the defence.
FIR No. 152/99 Page 6 of 15 Pages
7. PW3 Naresh Chand Sood had deposed that the building no: 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi was sold to Mr. Suri in 19921993 whereafter some portion of the said building was demolished while the remaining portion fell down due to heavy rains. This witness had also deposed that he never saw anyone residing in the said building and further testified that accused Rajiv Sharma started construction on the land of the said building in 199899.
This witness was then cross examined on behalf of the prosecution wherein he admitted that he had a shop in the said building wherein few other shops were also there and that the complainant was also residing at the premises in question. This witness in the same cross examination had also admitted that accused Rajiv Sharma started construction at the 1st floor of the said building on 09.07.1998.
Thereafter the witness was also cross examined on behalf of the defence wherein he had admitted that the building in question was demolished by the MCD.
8. PW4 Inspector Sunil Kumar was the Initial IO of this case, who had deposed about the steps taken by him in the present investigation which have already been discussed under the heading of "Brief Facts" and hence not repeated.
This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence wherein he had admitted that neither the complainant or his daughter Shiv Kumari gave him any documents of their ownership regarding the premises in question, nor did he collected any such documents from the complainant during the investigation. This witness had further admitted in the same cross examination that none of the stolen articles were recovered during the investigation.
9. PW5 HC Munpher Ali had deposed that he had recorded the DD No: 21A Ex. PW6/B on 14.10.1998.
This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence.
FIR No. 152/99 Page 7 of 15 Pages
10. PW6 SI Mohan Lal (Retired) proved the present FIR as Ex. PW6/A which was recorded by him on 21.09.1999 on the basis of the rukka Ex. PW6/B brought to him by Ct. Kishan Kumar.
This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the defence.
11. PW7 Ct. Shiv Narayan had deposed that he had received the documents Ex. PW4/B1 to Ex. PW4/B5 from the Office of the concerned Registrar on 04.11.1999 in pursuance of the notice issued by the IO PW4 SI Sunil Kumar U/s 91 Cr. P.C. This witness was not cross examined on behalf of the defence.
12. PW8 Ct. Pawan Kumar had deposed that he had received the GPA Ex. PW2/B (also marked as Ex. PW8/A) on the directions of 2nd IO PW2 Inspector Mehtab Singh (Retired) from the concerned Registrar at Rohtak, which was then seized by the said 2nd IO via seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence.
13. The PE was closed on 18.05.2011 after the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence despite repeated opportunities and the old pendency of this case since 2002.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant, his daughter Shiv Kumar and another independent witness PW Jai Kishan were dropped from the array of witnesses on 06.10.2010 after the said witnesses became untraceable during the trial.
14. The statement of the accused Gopal Kwatra U/s 313 Cr. P.C. r/w 281 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 11.07.2011 wherein the said accused professed the defence of "false implication" but preferred to lead no evidence in his defence whereby the trial came to an end and then the contesting parties were heard.
FIR No. 152/99 Page 8 of 15 Pages
Facts in Issue
15. In order to prove the offence U/s 448 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Gopal Kwatra in collusion with accused Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) had trespassed into the premises in question of the complainant with an intention to commit an offence therein whereafter the same was also demolished by them.
Further in order to prove the offence U/s 380 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that accused Gopal Kwatra in collusion with accused Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) had committed theft of the household articles of the complainant from the premises in question after trespassing therein.
Hence forth, I shall now step forward to evaluate the evidence appearing on record to find out if the prosecution has succeeded in its above task or not.
Appreciation of Evidence
16. In order to prove the offence of trespass against accused Gopal Kwatra, the prosecution was required to prove that the complainant had been in possession of the premises in question and that he was subsequently dispossessed by the accused Gopal Kwatra in collusion with coaccused Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) by trespassing into it and by demolishing it.
The various sale deeds which have come on record shows that the property no: 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi had changed hands from time to time which eventually came under the ownership of Baba Kapil Ram Dev Puri, Sh. Subash Chand and Smt. Neelam who thereafter appointed accused Gopal Kwatra as their attorney via respective GPA's Ex. PW2/B, Mark C and Mark D and hence authorized him to deal with the said property in any manner he liked.
The IO had seized various documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 (details FIR No. 152/99 Page 9 of 15 Pages of which have been already discussed in Para No: 3) and 18 electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 during the course of the investigation via respective seizure memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/H. The aforementioned documents include gas receipts, electricity bills and ration card in the name of the complainant having issued at the address of the premises in question.
As far as the documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 are concerned, all such documents pertains to the period stretching from 1956 till 1996. The said documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 no doubt shows that the complainant had been in possession of the premises in question from 1956 till 1996 but the said documents can not be used to infer that the complainant continued to be in possession of the premises in question even after 1996 till 1998 in which year he was allegedly dispossessed after demolition of his premises in question by accused Gopal Kwatra and Rajiv Sharma (since deceased).
The said documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 can at best be used to infer that the complainant was in possession of the premises in question from 1956 only till 1996 and hence are irrelevant to the present controversy since the said documents nowhere shows that the complainant continued in possession of the said premises in question even in the year 1998 immediately before his alleged dispossession and demolition of his premises in question.
17. The prosecution has also relied upon 18 electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 issued in the name of the complainant at the address of the premises in question for the period from 27.03.1997 to 31.12.1999 in order to prove that the complainant had been in possession of the premises in question till 1998 immediately before the alleged trespass and demolition.
The aforementioned electricity bills purportedly shows that the complainant had been in possession of premises in question from 27.03.1997 to 31.12.1999 but the prosecution has not proved the said electricity bills in compliance of the Evidence Act by calling for their relevant record from the concerned Electricity Department, which was so FIR No. 152/99 Page 10 of 15 Pages required particularly when the complainant and his daughter Shiv Kumari could not be procured as witnesses during the trial.
Moreover, the said electricity bills can not be relied upon because of certain grave inconsistencies appearing therein. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused Gopal Kwatra alongwith accused Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) had trespassed into the premises in question behind the back of the complainant and hence demolished the same, which facts came within the knowledge of the complainant only on 14.10.1998 whereafter he immediately informed the police via DD No: 21A/Tehrir Ex. PW6/B, meaning thereby, the complainant had already lost the possession of the premises in question latest by 14.10.1998 whereafter he could not have been in its possession as the same was also allegedly demolished by the aforementioned accused. However the aforementioned electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 which includes certain electricity bills for the months of November 1998, January 1999, March 1999, May 1999, July 1999 and September 1999 speakes otherwise. If the allegations of the prosecution that the said premises in question had already been demolished before 14.10.1998 which consequently dispossessed the complainant from there are true, then the prosecution was required to explain as to how the electricity continued to be consumed at the said demolished premises in question of the complainant even beyond 14.10.1998 since after the said demolition of the said premises in question prior to 14.10.1998 neither any electricity could have been consumed there, nor any bill demands could have been raised regarding the electricity connection of the complainant. However as per the aforementioned electricity bills regarding the period subsequent to 14.10.1998, it seems that electricity was continuously consumed in heavy quantity at the electricity connection of the complainant even after the purported demolition and his dispossession, whereby a doubt has creeped into the case of the prosecution thus making its theory of the alleged demolition and trespass into the premises in question by accused Gopal Kwatra and accused Rajiv Sharma (since deceased) improbable.
FIR No. 152/99 Page 11 of 15 Pages
18. Further more as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had been residing with his daughter Shiv Kumari in a rented premises since one year prior to 14.10.1998 after having locked the premises in question. However the electricity bills for the months of January 1998, March 1998, May 1998 and July 1998 included in the bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 shreds the aforesaid assertion of the prosecution into pieces. The aforementioned four bills clearly shows that electricity was being consumed at the premises in question on the electricity connection of the complainant. The aforementioned electricity bills for the months of January 1998, March 1998 & May 1998 comprises substantial electricity dues of amount beyond Rs. 3,000/ per cycle which thus shows that heavy energy consumption was prevalent at the premises in question of the complainant, which raises an inference that the complainant might have been using the said premises during the period from January 1998 till July 1998, thereby, making the allegations of the complainant that he had not been residing at the premises in question since one year prior to 14.10.1998 improbable, whereby the case of the prosecution has become more doubtful.
19. The aforementioned electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 relied by the prosecution to substantiate the possession of the complainant at the premises in question suffers from various other inconsistencies as well.
Out of the aforementioned electricity bills, there exists two bills for the same month of September 1999, both of which bills have separate due dates and separate due amounts. One of the such bills for September 1999 has a due amount of Rs. 491.93 paise payable on 20.10.1999, while another of such bill for the same month of September 1999 for the same month of September 1999 has a due amount of Rs. 239.32 paise payable on 26.10.1999.
It is difficult to understand as to how come two separate bills with two separate due dates and two separate due amounts came into being with regard to the electricity consumption for the same month of September 1999, which creates doubt with regard to the FIR No. 152/99 Page 12 of 15 Pages veracity of such electricity bills.
Similarly there are two bills one each for the month of November 1998 and November 1999, both of which bears the due date of same month of December 1999. It is difficult to reconcile as to how the bill of November 1998 could become payable in the same month of December 1999 when the bill of November 1999 also became payable, which fact further reduces the authenticity of such electricity bills.
Further their is another bill of May 1997 payable on 21.07.1999 with a due amount of Rs. 2412.78 Paise. It is difficult to understand as to how the bill for May 1997 could have become payable on 21.07.1999 after two years of its consumption whereby the authenticity of the aforementioned electricity bills has taken one more hitting.
The above discussion shows that the aforementioned electricity bills Ex. PW4/D to Ex. PW4/D18 suffers from various inconsistencies which has adversely affected their authenticity whereby it is not safe to rely on these electricity bills for any purpose whatsoever. As already discussed, the remaining documents Ex. PW4/A1 to Ex. PW4/A9 also can not be used to infer that the complainant was in possession of the premises in question immediately prior to 14.10.1998 since the said documents only pertains to the period till 1996 and not beyond that.
20. As is clear from the record, neither the complainant, nor his daughter Shiv Kumari appeared as witnesses during the trial due to their untraceability and non availability whereby no further evidence has come on record directly from the effected parties regarding the fact that either they were in possession of the premises in question at any time prior to 14.10.1998 or that the accused Gopal Kwatra had thereafter trespassed into their premises in question which he also subsequently demolished.
PW1 Babu Ram Behal had also weakened the case of the prosecution by deposing that after his purchase of the premises in question, he never found the complainant present at the premises in question during his repeated visits, which reduces the probability of FIR No. 152/99 Page 13 of 15 Pages the presence and possession of the complaint at the premises in question.
Further since the complainant or his daughter Shiv Kumari had not stepped into the witness box during the trial, the most important pieces of direct testimonies pertaining to the offences of trespass and theft also got lost whereby the remaining material on record regarding the offences in question looses its shine.
21. As per the record, the complaint was given to the police by the complainant on 14.10.1998 whereupon the FIR was lodged on 21.09.1999 subsequent to which investigation was assigned to PW4 Inspector Sunil Kumar, meaning thereby, whatever investigation had been carried out in this case was carried out subsequent to lodging of the FIR whereby nothing was done between the intervening period of date of complaint i.e. 14.10.1998 and date of FIR i.e. 21.09.1999, which thus shows that their is a delay of more than 10 months in the lodging of the FIR. Neither the prosecution, nor the initial IO PW4 Inspector Anil Kumar had explained the aforementioned delay occasioned in the lodging of the aforementioned FIR. The aforementioned omission to explain the delay in the FIR turns out to be a further blow to the already failing case of the prosecution.
22. Furthermore no direct evidence has come on record, either documentary or otherwise, to show that contesting accused Gopal Kwatra either had trespassed into or had demolished the premises in question.
The statement of the complainant recorded in Ex. PW6/B shows that the complainant had not leveled any allegations of trespass or theft against accused Gopal Kwatra but has only implicated accused Rajiv Sharma (Since deceased) and his associate Sanjay Sharma for the acts of trespass, theft & demolition.
PW1 Babu Ram Behal and PW3 Naresh Chand Sood also has deposed nothing to implicate accused Gopal Kwatra for any of the offences in question. Rather, PW3 Naresh Chand Sood had deposed in his examination in chief that accused Rajiv Sharma (since FIR No. 152/99 Page 14 of 15 Pages deceased) was the one who had raised construction at the premises in question and further had deposed in his cross examination on behalf of the defence that the said building was demolished by the MCD. Except for the fact that accused Gopal Kwatra was the attorney of the owner of the H.No. 321, Kucha Meer Ashiq, Chawari Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi, nothing has come on record to connect accused Gopal Kwatra with the alleged demolition or trespass into the premises in question belonging to the complainant or with the alleged theft of the household articles of the complainant, more so, when it is also admitted that neither of the stolen articles could be recovered during the investigation.
23. In view of my aforementioned discussion, the prosecution has been unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt its allegation of criminal trespass U/s 448 IPC and theft U/s 380 IPC against accused Gopal Kwatra.
Conclusion
24. For the reasons assigned herein above, the accused Gopal Kwatra is acquitted of the offences charged against him in this case after giving him the benefit of doubt. The B/B & S/B of the said accused are discharged. The original documents of his surety, if any on record, be released to his surety after cancellation of the endorsements thereupon as and when so applied.
The proceedings against accused Rajiv Sharma have already been abated. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 13th July, 2011 (SIDHARTH MATHUR) M.M. (CENTRAL - 02) DELHI FIR No. 152/99 Page 15 of 15 Pages